Lex on Jan 13 wrote:I doubt it has ever crossed your mind that there are about 1.5 million Palestinian Israeli citizens.

Not lately, Lex, but I do know that they constitute roughly 20% of the population of Israel.

I do know also that they're treated as second-class citizens, and their few representatives in the Knesset treated as pariahs.

And yet they still have more human rights than in any other middle eastern countries, at least if they are secular in their beliefs.

PeterD wrote:By the way, what do you think crossed the minds of these second-class citizens when Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni vomited these horrific remarks to students at a Tel Aviv high school, as reported by IDF Radio on Dec. 11, 2008?

"Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere."

Horror?

Not really. It's not exactly PC, but it's not genocidal either. Muslims find the presence of anyone not of the faith in Mecca to be anathema, so I don't see why the Israelis' "promised land" shouldn't be closed to Muslims. Turnabout's fair play.

PeterD wrote:

Lex wrote:They are descendants of the Palestinians who did not fight the occupation of the former Palestine by the Israelis.

?

Was this a Freudian slip?

No. I used it in a purely denotational sense, with no connotations intended; they did (and do) occupy the land.

PeterD wrote:

Lex wrote:A lot of people, here in the US and elsewhere, have this strange notion that all we have to do is appease the terrorists, and they'll leave us alone. And how should we appease them? Hand them Israel on a silver platter. Then all the bad men will leave us alone. It's ironic. We live in a mostly secular world now, and yet, even many of the secularists think that sacrificing Jews is the road to salvation.

No, Lex---no need to "sacrifice" Jews. What the Palestinians need, as Nooj so succinctly put it, is "(some of) their old places back."

But Israel is also an "old place" of the Jews. Not only that, it's their only "old place", and they have, oh, 2500 years prior claim over Muslims. And if the Israelis gave the land back lock, stock and barrel, where would they live? After that little problematic episode in Western history called the Holocaust, it seems some Jews don't trust us to give them a safe home. And seeing as how, even now, Europe is experiencing disturbingly high levels of anti-Semitism (even against Hasidic Jews, who are anti-Zionists), and the party of appeasement has been elected in the USA, I can't say that I blame them.

Lex wrote:And yet they still have more human rights than in any other middle eastern countries, at least if they are secular in their beliefs.

For Jews only, Lex.

For the record, Israel's Central Elections Committee has just recently barred the Arab political parties from participating in the upcoming Israeli February elections. No great feat really, Lex. It's all in a day's work for the apartheid state---a state that dares to call itself the only democracy in the region (a lie; the Republic of Cyprus is the only demcracy in the region).

Futhermore, most of these "other middle eastern countries," (awful regimes, no question there) have been supported for decades by the United States. Otherwise, these fascist regimes would have fallen already.

Lex wrote:

PeterD wrote:By the way, what do you think crossed the minds of these second-class citizens when Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni vomited these horrific remarks to students at a Tel Aviv high school, as reported by IDF Radio on Dec. 11, 2008?

"Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere."

Horror?

Muslims find the presence of anyone not of the faith in Mecca to be anathema, so I don't see why the Israelis' "promised land" shouldn't be closed to Muslims. Turnabout's fair play.

I was talking about the Palestinians of Israel, the indigenous population. What does this have to do with the other countries in the region and how they treat their citizens and noncitizens? I did say that the Arab regimes were awful, did I not?

In any case, by any reasonable measure, Livni's remarks were racist.

Lex wrote:

PeterD wrote:

Lex wrote:They are descendants of the Palestinians who did not fight the occupation of the former Palestine by the Israelis.

?

Was this a Freudian slip?

No. I used it in a purely denotational sense, with no connotations intended; they did (and do) occupy the land.

Thank you.

Now if the Israelis could only vamoose from the Occupied Territories...

Lex wrote:And if the Israelis gave the land back lock, stock and barrel, where would they live? After that little problematic episode in Western history called the Holocaust, it seems some Jews don't trust us to give them a safe home.

We're talking about a two-state settlement based on international law.

Please don't bring up the Nazi Holocaust to justify Israel's ghastly war crimes, including its recent slaughter of nearly 1,400 Palestinians, one-third of which were children. (Any money that racist buffoon ThomasGR will interject soon and claim that the Palestinian parents "pushed" their children onto incoming Israeli missiles and bullets. Too bad for him, though, the Israeli military had barred ALL journalists from entering Gaza to witness such a horrid parental display. ) That shameful, European catastrophe had absolutely nothing to do with the indigenous population of Palestine, i.e., the Palestinians (hence the modifier "Nazi").

Lex wrote:And seeing as how, even now, Europe is experiencing disturbingly high levels of anti-Semitism (even against Hasidic Jews, who are anti-Zionists)

I doubt that's the case. Even if it were, that's Europe's problem; it has nothing to do with Israel's brutal, illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

Lex wrote:...and the party of appeasement has been elected in the USA, I can't say that I blame them.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news (and I hope I am wrong), but very little change will occur over the next 4 years---especially when it comes to the Middle East.

I am glad you were able to post your views. As you know, the moderator has threatened to censor this thread.

best,

~PeterD

PS So... what books are you reading, Lex?

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

If I'm a racist, than you are all antisemit scumbugs. That all thread smells of it. I have reasons to be racist towards them, and I have proved it beyond any doubt. They (the Arabs) are simple stupids. Greece gave them a hand of friendship, some decades ago, and the only thing they thought to pay back, is to make Athens a hide-hole for terrorism, they attacked lots of "targets" within Greece, one of my relatives was in a ship by that time and almost died. In that ship was no one Israeli, that's why I call them stupid. They are beyond doubts. They deserve not to be friends with them. Now they are mourning and crying counting their deaths, but next time will think twice before they launch their fireworks. And that they push their kids to the fire, that is the horrible reality. Every one in the region knows that, except the antisemitists. The antisemitists love to show pictures of dead babies like necrophiles like to do. No, let me call you racists. You are. And they are stupid.

Peter wrote:(Any money that racist buffoon ThomasGR will interject soon and claim that the Palestinian parents "pushed" their children onto incoming Israeli missiles and bullets. Too bad for him, though, the Israeli military had barred ALL journalists from entering Gaza to witness such a horrid parental display.)

Well... here you have it:

ThomasGR wrote:And that they push their kids to the fire, that is the horrible reality. Every one in the region knows that, except the antisemitists

Bad "antisemitists," bad!

best,

~PeterD

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

I'm going to vote in favor of a lock-down of this thread, be it now or in the near future. (No, that's not censorship; the content will still be visible.) This has been THE worst discussion of the Gaza issue I have seen. No common ground was agreed upon in the first place, then we just talked past each other, and finally we resorted to name calling. Very depressing.

I believe you have presented valid and very useful information, PeterD, but it's time to let this thread die, for it can serve no further purpose, other than to sow bitter resentment among fellow textkittens.

This has been THE worst discussion of the Gaza issue I have seen. No common ground was agreed upon in the first place, then we just talked past each other...

I can't control (nor would I want to) what others here post. I am sorry, but when somebody here posts a ludricous or racist comment on the massive slaughter of defensive civilians in Gaza, or any people for that matter, I shall reply.

With regard to "no common ground was agreed upon in the first place," I don't understand what you mean. Common ground has been reached by the international community---i.e., THE WORLD---and by the overwhelming majority (14 to 1) of the judges of the International Court of Justice. What more common ground do you want?

This has been THE worst discussion of the Gaza issue I have seen.

The worst?

Tell me honestly, Amadeus, did you know before you read this thread that there has been for years a world and judicial consensus to settling the Israel-Palestine problem, that the United States was ignoring both the world and the World Court on this matter?

Did you know that it was Israel that violated the ceasefire?

Did you know that it is Israeli military policy to target civilians?

I am just asking.

... and finally we resorted to name calling.

I called a spade a spade. How would you characterize ThomasGR's racist outbursts? And in fairness, I did kindly ask him to stop fooling around.

I believe you have presented valid and very useful information, PeterD, but it's time to let this thread die

Like the other threads in the current page of the Open Board, this thread, too, will pass into obscurity when there is no longer any more interest. No one is obliged to participate in this thread, NOR is anyone obliged to read any of the posts here. If we start locking down threads, then what next, Amadeus? Do we start censoring subject matter as well? Moreover, I find it ironic that Willian---"Israel lives under constant threat of terrorism or invasion"---would do such a cowardly thing. He's learned more about the Middle East from this thread than he has in all of his adult life.

I believe you have presented valid and very useful information, PeterD, but it's time to let this thread die, for it can serve no further purpose, other than to sow bitter resentment among fellow textkittens.

Did you click any of the links that Interaxus was kind enough to provide? If you haven't, please do. Have a look at the three-week sluaghter that befell the defenseless civilians of Gaza. And you my dear Amadeus are worried about sowing "bitter resentment among fellow textkittens"? Fellow textkittens like whom, ThomasGR? Please. Why would you care for the likes of a racist like him? He should be hiding under his bedcovers for having posted such filth here. Forget him and all racists like him.

Take care, Amadeus.

best,

PeterD

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:With regard to "no common ground was agreed upon in the first place," I don't understand what you mean. Common ground has been reached by the international community...

But my concern is about this community, PeterD. If we can't agree about anything, then the discussion is pointless. This is argumentation 101.

Tell me honestly, Amadeus, did you know before you read this thread that there has been for years ....

Honestly? YES! I for one don't like to remain ignorant as regards important issues such as the one about the Israel-Palestine conflict. When I say this was THE worst discussion, I don't mean to say that it has been biased, but that we got nowhere. Annis asked what one should do to ameliorate the situation there. For me, giving money to the Red Cross, enrolling in an NGO, etc. doesn't really solve the problem. The answer lies, sadly, with the superpower(s) of the world. Yet they do nothing. Therefore, what I can personally do is to make people conscientious of what is happening there in Gaza, so that they can influence their leaders. (By the way, they say that the old taboo of talking against Israel is slowly eroding from the MSM!) This thread was a good opportunity, and it was wasted.

If we start locking down threads, then what next, Amadeus?

Answer: banning trolls. Seriously, though, we just can't let such animosity get in the way of intelligent discussion. Aren't we students of the Classics? Do we not revere Reason?

Did you click any of the links that Interaxus was kind enough to provide?

Lex wrote:And yet they still have more human rights than in any other middle eastern countries, at least if they are secular in their beliefs.

For Jews only, Lex.

Really? Would a Palestinian in, say, Saudi Arabia, be able to write and publish a book extolling the virtues of atheism, without his life being in danger? I doubt it. In Israel, that would be no problem.

PeterD wrote:For the record, Israel's Central Elections Committee has just recently barred the Arab political parties from participating in the upcoming Israeli February elections.

There's more to human rights than being able to vote. I also think the CEC was sensible. If we were in a nasty war with Mexico, let's say, I would find barring La Raza from politics to be perfectly reasonable.

PeterD wrote:In any case, by any reasonable measure, Livni's remarks were racist.

I don't see racism involved, so much as "culturism", the idea that some cultures are superior to others, and that certain cultures are not compatible with one another. That's an idea that I happen to subscribe to, not being a multi-culti. In any case, I think you throw the word "racist" about a bit too ... liberally?

PeterD wrote:Now if the Israelis could only vamoose from the Occupied Territories...

In the long run, that wouldn't change a thing. In fact, it could encourage the Islamists to go for more. Caving in to Islamist terrorism is the worst thing we or Israel could possibly do.

PeterD wrote:

Lex wrote:And if the Israelis gave the land back lock, stock and barrel, where would they live? After that little problematic episode in Western history called the Holocaust, it seems some Jews don't trust us to give them a safe home.

We're talking about a two-state settlement based on international law.

There are already two states, Israel and Jordan. Why can't the Jordanians take in the refugees? Most of Jordan is already Palestinian. Partitioning Israel into a jigsaw-puzzle mess will solve nothing in the long term. Only some Muslim nation quitting its hate crusade against Israel and giving the Palestinians a new home with their co-religionists will do that. And the reason that isn't happening is because the Muslim nations in the area want a continued excuse to fight Israel. They don't care about the Palestinians. Why should Israelis care for people who want to drive them from their home, when the Palestinians' own fellow Muslims don't?

PeterD wrote:Please don't bring up the Nazi Holocaust to justify Israel's ghastly war crimes, including its recent slaughter of nearly 1,400 Palestinians, one-third of which were children.

What about Hamas' ghastly war crime of hiding in civilian areas, so that the Israelis are faced with the choice of 1) not defending their country, or 2) accidentally killing innocents in the process of getting the terrorists? That is what strikes me a ghastly. Hamas stirred up the hornets' nest. Israel can't deal with them diplomatically (that would be rewarding terrorist behavior) and can't (out of fear of killing civilians) do nothing (that would show weakness). That puts Israel in exactly the hard position that the terrorists want. It's Hamas' fault in my book; they are the bad guys.

PeterD wrote:That shameful, European catastrophe had absolutely nothing to do with the indigenous population of Palestine, i.e., the Palestinians (hence the modifier "Nazi").

No, but it does have something to do with why the Israelis will not move from the former Palestine. It. Will. Not. Happen.

PeterD wrote:

Lex wrote:And seeing as how, even now, Europe is experiencing disturbingly high levels of anti-Semitism (even against Hasidic Jews, who are anti-Zionists)

I doubt that's the case.

It is the case. Do a Google search on "rising anti-semitism Europe".

PeterD wrote:Even if it were, that's Europe's problem; it has nothing to do with Israel's brutal, illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

Yeah, if those darn Jews would just go away, the world would be a better place.

PeterD wrote:

Lex wrote:...and the party of appeasement has been elected in the USA, I can't say that I blame them.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news (and I hope I am wrong), but very little change will occur over the next 4 years---especially when it comes to the Middle East.

Well, one of our Savi... errr... President's first official acts was to announce the closure of Guantanamo in one year. That seems to me to be a clear sign that weakness and appeasement will be the course of the next four years.

PeterD wrote:I am glad you were able to post your views. As you know, the moderator has threatened to censor this thread.[snip]PS So... what books are you reading, Lex?

I don't personally think that this thread needs to be frozen, unless there are hard drive space considerations. After all, this is the "Open Board". But, hey, it's not my site. I do find it more interesting than a thread on what others are reading, though. But since you asked, I'm now reading A History of Israel by John Bright. It's on ancient Israel, not the modern one. I have one on modern Israel also called A History of Israel by Howard M. Sachar, but haven't started it yet.

"A good occupation soldier is a dead occupation soldier. (Excuse the cliche )"

Only, they do not kill soldiers, are not enough brave to do that, for if they did that, they would be brave fighters, but innocent Jewish kids (that makes them scum). Not even that. With those fireworks, they can't even kill a mosquito. Therefore that nonsense cliche is not valid, should better replaced with the famous quote from Quran "Jews are the sons of pigs and apes". Here's another famous quote from Hamas "After Saturday, comes Sunday". You'll read it on all headbands the fighters are wearing. This thread started with bullshit, and ends in nonsense.

Amadeus wrote:Annis asked what one should do to ameliorate the situation there. For me, giving money to the Red Cross, enrolling in an NGO, etc. doesn't really solve the problem. The answer lies, sadly, with the superpower(s) of the world. Yet they do nothing. Therefore, what I can personally do is to make people conscientious of what is happening there in Gaza, so that they can influence their leaders. (By the way, they say that the old taboo of talking against Israel is slowly eroding from the MSM!) This thread was a good opportunity, and it was wasted.

Ahh, here we get to the crux of the matter. Actually the two, um, cruces?

First, is one a revolutionary or a reformer? That is, does one believe it is possible or worthwhile to take small steps toward a goal, or does one believe that a single, massive step is the only legitimate way there? I personally don't favor revolution for the simple reason that I've seen way too many revolutionaries who do nothing but sit around, cultivate their rage and shout a lot, while never getting a single thing done. A revolution also requires you get a lot of people to change their minds and come over to your side. That's not always possible, which also generally results in inaction (well, except more fruitless shouting).

Second, how does one best communicate to people to get them to change their minds, and their ways? To pick on this thread's two primary combatants, who wants either PeterD or ThomasGR on their side at this point? ThomasGR has apparently given himself over to such anger that his command of English is slipping in some posts, and while in theory I ought to be on PeterD's side, he conducts himself so jerkishly that I don't want him to ever agree with me at this point — he seems to me a PR disaster for whatever side he's on. I'm all in favor of making oneself clear forcefully when necessary, but the insults, inuendo and condescension serve no purpose but to puff up the person indulging. Who has ever called someone stupid in an argument and then have them agree with you? It's hard enough to get agreement on big political and social issues — it seems pure madness to expect hostility to be the best way to get people on your side.

Who care's, and that's not me. I will not post anymore here (aside from this jerky thread). To have some fun in my last posts, I do it for my amusement. I expected more from the members here, and the only they could is to reprint Arab propaganda, without being able to read behind the lines and less having knowledge of the region. So I have read nonsense of the kind "Hamas got voted because it's not corrupt and the proof for that is that Hamas has kindergartens". Sorry, but that nonsense is exactly the proof that Hamas is corrupt beyond imagination, even for the standards of that region. I'll add to your knowledge, Hamas does not only have kindergartens, but also handed out food to the people, portions of clear water, rice and meat. Oh, yeah, they are so democratically elected. You'll need only to give them your vote, but than, what's worth your silly vote, if it comes to the basic question of your survival. Dare, to say not.

Lex wrote:[Palestine belonged to the British, and the British gave it away, which they had every right to do.

The British did not have "every" right to give Palestine away (=expel the native Palestinian population). That's like saying the Nazis had "every" right to deport and imprison thousands of Jews just because they were inside German territory. Perhaps there is a legal right here (and I'm not sure there is), but no moral right, never.

why don't they immigrate to other Islamic nations?

Because Palestine is their homeland too? Also, if no other country will have them (except Jordan), that's not the Arabs' fault, but the Israelis', since they were the ones who forced them out.

I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Palestinians lost any right to that land after WWI. After the Ottoman Empire picked the (morally) wrong side, they lost any rightful claim to the property taken by the British. And the British then gave their property to the Israelis, as they had every right to do. So, the Israelis have every right to it.

Amadeus wrote:

No, I said what I meant to say.

Perhaps Interaxus' and PeterD's objection to your comment is the use of the word "sensible". How can the Israelis' killing of 900+ Palestinians pro 4 Israelis dead be called "sensible"? Is Jewish blood more precious than Arab?

No. But going after terrorists, who are killing Israeli citizens who have (in my mind at least) every right to be there, is the only "sensible" course, IMO. It sucks that innocent civilians die in the crossfire, but in the Israeli's situation, anything else would be suicide. A country can't let enemies whack their civilians with impunity. What's so hard to understand about this?

Amadeus wrote:

If they hide behind civilians like cowards, and some of those civilians get killed, that is on the heads of the terrorists.

That's a pretty lame excuse. "Oh, it's the terrorists fault".

I think it's a great excuse. After all, the terrorists are the ones who started the hostilities up again by killing the rightful (Israeli) residents.

Amadeus wrote:

Lex wrote:The ones who did try to fight were (quite sensibly) refused Israeli citizenship, became refugees, and were refused citizenship in most Islamic countries.

Again, it's not the Palestinian's fault. They fought, as you rightly put it, an occupation, and they lost. Somehow that justifies their mass expulsion?

No! What justifies their expulsion is that after siding with the (morally) wrong side in WWI, it wasn't their land any more!

Amadeus wrote:Imagine the resistance in France and Poland loosing to the Nazis, and as retaliation for such "insubordination" the mass expulsion of French and Polish. Would you still say that was a "sensible" thing for the Nazis to do?

If you can't see a moral difference between the Allies in WWI and Nazi Germany in WWII, I am afraid I can't help you. If you don't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you.

Amadeus wrote:

A lot of people, here in the US and elsewhere, have this strange notion that all we have to do is appease the terrorists, and they'll leave us alone. And how should we appease them? Hand them Israel on a silver platter.

You sure know how to pick the words. No one here is attempting to "appease" the terrorists. No one here is conceding anything to terrorists. We are all smart people, who know that Israel is not going anywhere (at least in the near future). What those of us who object to Israel's occupation and brutal war tactics are demanding is what the whole world has been asking for, namely, the Israeli's withdrawal to pre-1967 borders and the creation of a Palestinian State. That is not a terrorist demand. That is what the U.N. demands. Will that "appease" the extremists, probably not. But appeasement is not the goal here, but, rather, what is just.

No, the "whole world" has not been asking for "Israeli's withdrawal to pre-1967 borders and the creation of a Palestinian State", only the parts that hate civilization, namely, the left, which is to say pretty much all of Europe and a large portion of the US and Canada, and Muslims. And why "pre-1967 borders"? I thought the Arabs were the agressors in the '67 war, so why shouldn't the Israelis be able to take the land they need as a defensive buffer against another such attack? And "that is what the U.N. demands"? So what? What moral authority does the UN command? It's a collection of moral retards and 3rd-world tinpot dictators; it's a bad joke.

For the record Lex, I’m Muslim and a “religious” one at that. It must irk you that such “uncivilized,” “barbaric,” “violent” and "inferior" people like myself study Greek and Latin.

Also this,

I don't see racism involved, so much as "culturism", the idea that some cultures are superior to others, and that certain cultures are not compatible with one another

is no different from what Hitler believed about the German Volk. He thought Germans were “culturally” and “ethnically” superior... and well we know how that turned out.

Admittedly, the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British all thought they were “superior” to Africans… but I’m sure you would voice your opinion about the merits of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Africans were black and "inferior" right? They deserved what they got.

I could go on and on… It’s sufficient to say that you first of all won’t be able to define what culture is conclusively, unless you’ve imagined something about yourself that is far from reality, and second of all you have also certainly imagined an equally ridiculous idea of what “civilization” means.

And…continue clouding your mind with back-and-white-without-analysis-simplistic-nonsense by Ibn Warraq. Certainly his rhetoric about the end of Western “civilization” must keep you up all night. Again “civilization?”

By the way I’m not an Arab—whatever that means, but I guess in your eyes, the multiplicity of linguistic groups, ethnicitities, histories and the heterogeneity of beliefs that undergird Muslims are all one and the same to you---black and white—“blood thirsty” and “evil.”

Why not call for the genocide of all Muslims? I must have forgotten, this is exactly for what you are calling for… Remember is it is only later that Hitler called for the extermination of Jews.. it first started with rhetoric, much to my dismay, the same type that you spew.

Let me end with a proviso: don’t respond. Reading your illogical and nonsensical rhetoric in the above posts frightens me. The last thing I would want to do is to engage with a xenophobic racist who believes that cultures are “superior” some how…

I should now return to my Greek and Latin books. Are you sure you will be able to sleep at night, considering a Muslim is engaging with Western “Civilization?”

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. After my last post here got a reply to which I rather I didn't answer (I mean, really Peter!!) I did follow the individual posts and the few attempts at honest to goodness discussion making little comments to myself but not wishing to get in the middle of so much "vehemence".

But,

Answer: banning trolls. Seriously, though, we just can't let such animosity get in the way of intelligent discussion. Aren't we students of the Classics? Do we not revere Reason?

Well, the Classics do include i.e. Demosthenes' and Cato the Elder's "ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" ilk, so fanatical ranting is just fine just as long as its eloquent.

IreneY wrote:Sorry, I couldn't help myself. After my last post here got a reply to which I rather I didn't answer (I mean, really Peter!!)

All I said was how lovely your smile ( ) was. Was it unbecoming of me?

Well, the Classics do include i.e. Demosthenes' and Cato the Elder's "ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" ilk, so fanatical ranting is just fine just as long as its eloquent

...and Plato, and just about every Greek, past and present.

best,

PeterD

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Lex wrote:And the British then gave their property to the Israelis, as they had every right to do. So, the Israelis have every right to it.

This is no counter-argument, you are just repeating what you said earlier. How is it that defeating your enemy and acquiring (occupying) his land, you automatically have all the rights to do whatever you wish to him? That does not strike you as morally wrong? If the British had enslaved the Palestinians, that would be right?

Lex wrote:What's so hard to understand about this?

What is hard to understand is Israel's lack of discretion in retaliating against its enemies. I'm not denying Israel's right to self-defense, but what went on in Gaza was beyond self-defense. It bombed schools and even UN buildings designed to help the unfortunate. The IDF knew that there were civilians inside and still shelled it. The UN called them and demanded they stop firing, but the military went ahead and destroyed the warehouse. A speaker for the UN called allegations that there were militants operating inside as totally untrue. Is this "sensible"? Are we supposed to just say "aw, that sucks, but it had to be done"? I don't think so.

Lex wrote:What justifies their expulsion is that after siding with the (morally) wrong side in WWI, it wasn't their land any more!

Again with this. Does it really not bother you that the victor can decide what is morally wrong and chastise a whole population for the actions of a few? That's tyranny!

Lex wrote:If you can't see a moral difference between the Allies in WWI and Nazi Germany in WWII, I am afraid I can't help you. If you don't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you.

Or, rather, you can't see the similarity, because you are clinging to a black-and-white view that the Allies in WWI had God on their side, and were just doing His handiwork. You should really study History a bit more, then you will realize that true moral values are seldom practiced during war.

Lex wrote:No, the "whole world" has not been asking for "Israeli's withdrawal to pre-1967 borders and the creation of a Palestinian State", only the parts that hate civilization, namely, the left, which is to say pretty much all of Europe and a large portion of the US and Canada, and Muslims.

Yes, the whole world, except for the U.S. and the great republic of Palau and some other tiny islands that no one knows about.

I guess I must hate civilization too. Yet, I'm no liberal; I'm a traditionalist, much like Pat Buchanan. Do you know who he is?

And why "pre-1967 borders"? I thought the Arabs were the agressors in the '67 war, so why shouldn't the Israelis be able to take the land they need as a defensive buffer against another such attack?

Because that goes against the 4th Geneva Convention.

And "that is what the U.N. demands"? So what? What moral authority does the UN command? It's a collection of moral retards and 3rd-world tinpot dictators; it's a bad joke.

So why is the U.S. a member then? Why did it help create the UN?

Vale.

P.S.: For everyone else, here's a useful link I found when researching this topic to answer Lex: http://www.jatonyc.org/

Annis wrote:To pick on this thread's two primary combatants, who wants either PeterD or ThomasGR on their side at this point?

ThomasGR is not a "combatant." He is a racist buffoon.

Annis wrote:ThomasGR has apparently given himself over to such anger that his command of English is slipping in some posts...

What command?

Annis wrote:...while in theory I ought to be on PeterD's side, he conducts himself so jerkishly that I don't want him to ever agree with me at this point — he seems to me a PR disaster for whatever side he's on.

You've also on another occasion called me "provocative," whatever that means. Anyway... Please give me an example where I have conducted myself "jerkishly" in this thread, William. Notwithstanding my conduct (very controlled considering) towards the racist buffoon ThomasGR, there's been no malice in any of my posts---in fact, no different than anyone else's here. Even with Lex, whom I vehemently disagree with, I have been very cordial: no foul language, no temper tantrums---just back-and-forth discussion. Moreover, I even had the gentlemanly manners to compliment IrenyY on her beautiful smile.

If anyone's been "jerkish" (again, excluding the racist buffoon ThomasGR) in this thread it's... you:

Annis wrote:My, my. You do like to talk, don't you?

My numero uno, fundamental question remains — what are you doing to mitigate what's going on and what do you want me to do? What service — apart from yet more jibber-jabber — can we render to Justice? If you cannot answer that question I have no time for you on this issue.

What was with the "you-do-like-to-talk" sarcasm bit? Did you count the words? Here, let me do some counting: For every post that I've posted here, you've posted at least 6. Ergo ,if there's anyone here who does like to talk, that someone is you. Besides, you had said a lot, remember? What d'you want, a pec-on-the-cheek reply?

And talking about PR disasters, I loved this reply: "If you cannot answer that question I have no time for you on this issue."

First, I did not ask for your time. Second, I did answer your question... and then some. In fact, I gave you---"Israel lives under constant threat of terrorism or invasion"---a reality check in Middle East Politics. And what do I get? I get a whimper from you: "If you cannot answer that question I have no time for you on this issue."

Maybe I am not big on PR, but, frankly, I don't see you ever working for any big NYC PR firms.

Actually, I was quite surprised that you participated at all in this thread. If I recall correctly, when Kopio (I miss Kopio, btw) started a similar thread (Hezbollah) 2 years ago, you didn't say a word, not a single word to the wholesale slaughter of Lebanese civilians at the hands of the Israeli military. Tell us, how did you so suddenly overcome your shyness?

Annis wrote:Who has ever called someone stupid in an argument and then have them agree with you?

I did not call anyone "stupid"---not even ThomasGR (I believe I called him a "racist buffoon," deservedly so, I might add). For the record, most insults were directed at me, not that I cared.

Annis wrote: It's hard enough to get agreement on big political and social issues— it seems pure madness to expect hostility to be the best way to get people on your side.

Stop making **** up, William. When you discount the racist buffoon---"And that they push their kids to the fire, that is the horrible reality. Every one in the region knows that, except the antisemitists[sic]"---from this thread, there's been no hostility whatsover. Please... give me an example.

Annis, regarding ThomasGR, wrote:Ahh... so you are a troll after all.

Congrats — account locked. I've emailed Jeff, who can decide to unlock your account or not as he sees fit.

Finally! What took you so long? Amadeus was way ahead on everyone on this. It never occured to me (his buffoonery sidetracked me) until he betrayed himself with this comment: "I'll comment only on the Cyprus issue. A parallel story like the one in Palestine. Hadn't they wanted to exterminate all the Turks from the island, physically and bodily by killing all Turks."

The Palestinians of Gaza suffered 3 weeks of death and destruction at the hands of their murderous Israeli masters, backed by the United States government (Israel does nothing---and I mean nothing---without Uncle Sam's okay), the illegal blockade has not been lifted, and we're now reduced to discussing f-cking manners. WTF!

White phosphorus, anyone?

best,

~PeterD

PS Amadeus, wongallo, excellent posts!

Edit: The link I posted in the following entry really upset me. F-ck!

Last edited by PeterD on Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:00 am, edited 4 times in total.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Last edited by PeterD on Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

I'm beginning to think that if this issue is really affecting you to such an extent, then Annis' suggestion that you do something about it is not really off the mark. Go help the poor people in Gaza, and leave polite discussion to others.

How long are Jeff and the other moderators going to allow this to go on?

PeterD and ThomasGR should be thrown off of this forum - or please throw the rest of us off, beginning with me. And lock or delete this thread, which is an insult not only to Textkit and to propriety but, far more importantly, an insult to the issue of peace and justice in the middle east.

It is quite clear that neither of the participants in this actually wants the issue resolved. Instead, the craven cowards are quite content to stand on the sidelines, where it's very, very safe and they can't actually be hurt or called to responsibility, and throw feces at each other and pretend to be ever so righteous. They have a lot of feces to throw, because not one of them is made of anything else.

I don't care where you stand on this issue - and it is an important one - it will never be solved like this, and these two insults to humanity are perfect examples of why peace and justice are so elusive. They don't really care about peace and justice. In fact, the more violence and the more killing that goes on, the more they feel that they, as individuals profit. It brings attention to them. They prefer personal fame and adulation to real solutions. They prefer egotism to decency.

Please Jeff, please William, throw these guys off the forum - even though they've been here a long time, they no longer deserve the privilege - and at least lock, if not (and better yet) erase, this thread. This isn't a discussion, it's not an argument, there's no intention of actually trying to find common ground. It's just two people cowering behind the safety of their keyboards while pretending to be oh, so noble. By the way, I live in Waunakee, Wisconsin. It's just north of Madison. Anyone who wants to can find it and me very, very easily. I also like to visit the Field Museum and Oriental Institute whenever I can. You can find my schedule on the forums Egyptian Dreams and The Sacred Land. And from time to time I take other trips as well. I can post my schedule.

Back to the moderators:

My god - you silenced Neos, which action I support, and all he did was post irritating and deliberately false etymologies. About a year ago, you revoked the membership of a young man who only insulted a new member. I agree, your action was proper. He should have been thrown off. And now this.

Bob Manske wrote:...and these two insults to humanity are perfect examples of why peace and justice are so elusive.

First, don't compare me to that racist buffoon. Second, "peace and justice are elusive" because American saps like you swallow whole what your government and mainstream press dish out.

Humanity? What do you know about it, "all-knowing" Bob? You, like your fellow American saps who voted either Democrat or Republican, have blood on your hands. And you're calling me an "insult to humanity?"

Bob Manske wrote:In fact, the more violence and the more killing that goes on, the more they feel that they, as individuals profit. It brings attention to them. They prefer personal fame and adulation to real solutions. They prefer egotism to decency.

Are you for real? I'm anonymous here, BOB MANSKE from WAUNAKEE, WISCONSIN. No one knows who I am.

BOB MANSKE, Here's the link again: http://www.angryarab.blogspot.com. Scroll down to "Scenes from Gaza." I want to show you some "decency" and "humanity" compliments of your goverment.

Bob Manske wrote:I live in Waunakee, Wisconsin. It's just north of Madison. Anyone who wants to can find it and me very, very easily.

EDIT: Edited out the part of Bob Manske's a** and the cucumber. Don't want dem young'ins to be offended.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis